Open Thread: Alito Hearings

"And I love it that Kennedy was in an all men's club at Haaaaavard and can lecture Alito."

But what is your opinion of the actual issue?

I think it's bad that both men - Kennedy and Alito - belonged to college organizations that believed in exclusionary principles. And I'd be curious to know what both men have to say about it now. What about you? I mean, the "Johnny Did It, Too!" card is a pretty pointless discussion tactic. It doesn't solve anything, and merely continues the finger-pointing. I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue of both Kennedy and Alito belonging to clubs that believed in excluding people.

Gordy,

I actually agree that it's pretty much a non-issue, although a lot of people didn't belong to such groups, so that also says something.

Be that as it may, I really don't think it's useful for the judiciary committee to get hung-up on that topic.

As for the inappropriateness of it, the answer is 'yes' on both counts of which you ask. That's not saying that I think people should be shunned or prevented from holding office because they belonged to such groups, but I'm wary of any group or organization that, for whatever reason, judges and excludes based upon a broad swath of characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, etc.)

There are groups which are created primarily for gays, but if, for whatever reason, some straight people wanted to join, I'm sure they'd be able to. It's just that they often don't want to. So, hey, nice try.

I'd also like to add that I'm not in favor of the "gay high school" concept that opened a year or two ago in NYC. Exclusion - by anyone, toward anyone - based upon broad characteristics, isn't something I'm very keen on.

btw, RSW, your question is yet another "Johnny Does It, Too!" pointless tactic. It doesn't move forward the discussion in any meaningful way, nor does it detail your own particular opinion on the matter. Where do you stand? Are you for or against excluding people from things based on race, gender, religion and sexuality?

It's terribly frustrating when all people want to do is point and say "Johnny does it, too!" What on earth does that do, except point out yet more bad judgement on the part of others. It doesn't help to solve anything.

I agree that "Kennedy did it too" is pretty lame. My point is that Kennedy has so much baggage and skeletons, he has no place bullying Alito. Stick with court cases Alito has ruled on.

Let's look at the opposite of this, and let me ask what is wrong with such an exclusive organization? Thoughts?

I will admit that I mostly only get my news from Fox and that isn't really going to cut it here. But...I haven't heard one single thing about a decision that Alito has handed down, all I'm hearing about is his twenty year old membership to an organization that he was not very active in. All I've seen and heard is ugly and pointless. Lifetime appointment or not what occured over the last couple of days just seems like a huge waste of time to me, nothing was accomplished. If there were room for concern don't you think that you'd have more than a magazine article published more than twenty years ago? And as far as the wife didn't she put a human face on how ugly the political game can be? I was under the understanding that a judge's decision was in black and white, does it really need to be this hard?

"Let's look at the opposite of this, and let me ask what is wrong with such an exclusive organization? Thoughts?"

Good question, veritas.

I don't have the time I wish I had to explain it as detailed as I'd like, but in general I think it goes against what many value as America's "rugged individualism." We pride ourselves on being unique, as being individuals. This is how we (supposedly) think people should be judged.

To then have groups which exclude on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc. flies in the face of one of the main things that America stands for - the individual. It's basically, "All women aren't good enough to join our club. All men aren't good enough to join our club. All blacks aren't good enough to join our club. All gays aren't good enough to join our club. All straights aren't good enough to join our club." Etc. etc. I just think it's wrong and goes against American principles.

However, if such groups wish to exist, that's fine by me (that they exist, not what they stand for). But such groups should also be thick-skinned enough to take the criticism which will naturally come from their belief system.

Does that explanation make any sense?

"I don't think girls should be in the Vienna Boys Choir. Not because they are not good enough, but because they don't fit the qualification."

This begs the question: Why do we need a separate boys and girls choir? Etc., etc.

Matthew --while I agree with you that I don't like to exclude people. But we do have a constitutional right to assemble.

As far as Kennedy is concerned if he felt so strongly that it was wrong for someone to gain office that had been part of a club that had excluded certain people. Then Kennedy should resign to show the proper example to us all.

For the record the group wasn't racist someone had wrote some articles that the group did not agree with in its publications. I guess they could have told the writers they could not include the articles but that would be exclusionary and against free speech which of course would have become the charge now.

ILLINIstockjockey is right this should be about his qualifications which are superb. So the Democrats because they can't hit him on his qualification have to falsely charge him with racism and put someone one of great quality that we need on the Supreme Court and his family though Hell.

If I confine myself to Alito's answers during the confirmation hearing, I have no reason to argue that he shouldn't be confirmed. Liberal, moderate or conservative, the overwhelming issue with regard to any judicial appointment should be the qualifications of the individual and Alito appears to be eminently qualified.

I am disappointed with the Republicans' effective nonparticipation in the proceedings. Surely among all of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, a few can be found who have specific concerns or a genuine interest in Alito's legal foundation, yet the Republican members have done virtually nothing but feed Alito Bush talking points in the form of transparent, pointless softball questions. I have the distinct impression that if someone produced a picture of Alito robbing a bank in his Klan robe, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would begin singing the virtues of bank robbery and the Klan.

I am equally disappointed that the Democrats have not defended themselves against Republican cries of partisanship and politicization by stressing the reason why I (and presumably they) are unwilling to take Alito's qualifications at face value--specifically, that President Bush has all but assured a host of fundamentalist Christian groups of his intent to appoint justices who would overturn Roe. That was an underlying promise in both his campaigns and remains a top priority of much of his "base." I see nothing in Alito's record to suggest that his religious beliefs supersede his respect for the law, but the Republicans have only Bush to blame for giving moderates, liberals and conservatives who are not fundamentalist Christians ample basis for skepticism. Personally, I am comforted by the Bush administration's apparent lack of interest in following through on any of its promises to the religious right--he wants their votes but doesn't seem to want their agenda--and therefore am willing to assume that Alito is in fact merely a judicial conservative, not a theological operative.

The CAP issue concerns me simply because I have to conclude that Alito either lied in 1985, or he's lying now. I've certainly been a member of some organizations that I didn't belong to for long--groups that didn't offer benefits commensurate with their dues; groups that moved in a direction I didn't approve of; groups I simply lost interest in or had insufficient time for. But if asked about any such group, I could at least recall the basics of the organization, the approximate time frame and my reason for joining. I don't have any reason to believe that Alito actually thinks women and minorities should be kept out of Princeton, and in fact I believe him when he says he finds CAP's positions reprehensible--but his claim of complete ignorance with regard to CAP is not credible. When someone appears to be lying when he could easily tell the truth (for example, that he joined to bolster his conservative "street cred" and based on a mistaken impression of their agenda), it makes me wonder what else he has to hide.

In the end, Alito will be confirmed, and I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that such an outcome would be inappropriate. Even the most liberal Senators must realize that he's qualified and not a total whackjob, so I don't think a filibuster is likely or appropriate. After 20 years of opinions I may feel differently, but compared to all the Justices we've seated in the last 200 years, Alito seems good as any and better than most.

But why don't the Republicans just come out and say:

"Would you vote to overturn Roe?"

Alito: "Sure. Roe has major problems. It should be overturned!"

"Thank you."

Hey - you guys won fair and square, right? Why shy away from the great, popular position of overturning Roe? Why all the tap dancing? Could it be Americans really don't want this to happen? Hmmm.

If Alito were to come out and say that Roe should be overturned then he would demonized by the libs and painted as a radical fringe religious extremist as well as a someone who woud deny a persons privacy rights. It would just get ugly and snowball from there. In the current climate of DC that is simply not wise no matter the qualifications. Alito's body of work is substantial and his prior decisions do not mark him as an agenda setter.

Alito should have just replayed the GINZBERG responses. Odd, how her stonewalling was accepted without a problem and she was easily confirmed. Now, enter DICK DURBIN who has the gall to say "..my mind is not made up" on the ALITO nomination. Not only is our state politically corrupt, but our politicians are so partisan it's beyond belief.